Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in continuationI briefly wish to make a further comment on the report for 2008-09 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I am a great supporter of the ABC. I think it provides a great many interesting shows as a public broadcaster but, like many people on this side of politics I have concerns about some of the content of the ABC and sometimes the lack of disclosure—these have been discussed on numerous occasions. One of my preferred shows which I enjoy is the television show Q&A. I have appeared on it once or twice and I think it is an interesting debate and discussion. But part of the content that was discussed the other night I found was just appalling and I think has no place on our public broadcaster. There was a discussion which started with a question of the philosopher Peter Singer about his endorsement of bestiality and his writing of a foreword for a book, or a review of a book, that basically said—and he said this on the show but I will paraphrase it—what is wrong with intimate relations between a human and an animal if neither of them object to it?

I am sickened by that. I am sure most Australians are sickened by it. The fact that our national broadcaster allowed the debate and the discussion to go on, that they gave it air time, and that they gave it any semblance of credibility, is to my mind just appalling. Most people should be sickened by this sort of thing. It is not about stifling people’s views; let them write them down if that is what they want to do. But to have a discussion about the alleged merits of sexual relations between a woman and a dog is just grotesque and a misuse of taxpayer funds, which are financing our ABC.

This was built on top of Mr Singer’s views about infanticide and how we should be able to knock off children who are born with a disability—he does not like them; they do not look right or something like that. He says that is okay, we can do that. If you want to have these sorts of discussions leave them to those seedy chat rooms where weirdos lurk and stuff like that. Let it happen there. Let it happen in an environment that is not endorsed by our national broadcaster.

On Q&Aas I said, I like the show; I find it interesting—they know the questions that are going to be asked because they screen them. They know generally what the topics are going to be. If there is a legitimate question that is going to be posed to someone with extreme and horrendous views such as this Singer chap, you have got to then rein in the debate. You cannot turn people off.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell interjecting—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell is interjecting. I cannot hear what he is saying. I presume you are not endorsing bestiality, Senator Farrell. I am making that presumption. You can interject and tell me whether you do or not at this point.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, please direct your comments through the Chair.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I will give Senator Farrell the benefit of the doubt that he is not endorsing bestiality. This is about the national broadcaster. We should not be allowing this sort of stuff to gain air play lest it gain any semblance of credibility. I found it offensive. I know the majority of Australians found it offensive. We expect higher standards from our own national broadcaster and I would encourage our national broadcaster to be more mindful of what they are putting to air.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the same document—the ABC annual report. It is interesting to note with respect to this report that, like most organisations, the ABC have values. In this particular case, I go to the integrity of the ABC. The report notes trustworthiness, honesty and fairness. Conversely, I take you to an interview in which Kerry O’Brien, the interviewer on The 7.30 Report, was interviewing the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. Unfortunately I was not able to watch the program—I was otherwise involved in other activities; I may have even been down here. I cannot recall back on 17 May whether that was the case. But Kerry O’Brien, in scrutinising the opposition’s position on tax, questions Tony Abbott by saying:

But part of that judgment is judging whether they can trust you at your word, at what you say at any given time. In February this year you said in a radio interview: “We will fund our promises without new taxes and without increased taxes.”

We know for the record that that is not the case now. Kerry O’Brien then put to Tony Abbott:

A month later you announced that you’d fund six months paid maternity leave by putting a new tax on big companies.

A big new tax on companies. That was a concern that was certainly expressed by many businesses during my time on the paid parental leave inquiry. Further on Kerry O’Brien said:

So you are prepared, having promised one month no new tax whatever, no increased tax to pay for policies, one month later you find a rationale that says we’re gonna have to find a new tax for this.

Tony Abbott blustered and stumbled and did not really know what to say in response in that particular interview and really did not come up with an answer to the question. So Kerry O’Brien pressed him a bit further and said:

But what you haven’t explained is how you can make one promise in one month and then completely change it the next.

Was it really a sudden explosion of vision or a thought bubble? That was something that needed to be scrutinised, and that is certainly what Kerry O’Brien was doing on The 7.30 Report. He was testing to see whether the opposition leader was truthful. Tony Abbott responded, finally, indicating:

... sometimes, in the heat of discussion, you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm ... the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth is those carefully prepared scripted remarks.

So you start to wonder what sorts of remarks can be relied upon—if it is something that Tony Abbott is reading from or something that he says in an interview or in any location—and whether his remarks are truly gospel truth.

I also found it astonishing in the transcript of his defence that he indicated that what he said at one stage was ‘absolutely consistent’ and then on the other hand there was ‘a bit of inconsistency’ and he then mentioned ‘seriously inconsistent’. Kerry O’Brien pulled him up and said:

Is that why your colleagues over the years have come to call you “The Weathervane”?

I think that is a bit of an unfair comment, but that is certainly the analogy that Kerry O’Brien and, it appears, some of his colleagues across the other side of chamber refer to him as—because he sways from one end of the argument to the other. He certainly indicated that that is the case by admitting on The 7.30 Report that he is untruthful.

There is one other point that I wish to make. We covered off on the Paid Parental Leave scheme this afternoon—which was great to see; however, if you go back in time to 2002, Mr Abbott told a Liberal Party function in Victoria:

Compulsory paid maternity leave? Over this Government’s dead body, frankly.

So there is the inconsistency. They are the reasons that those colleagues opposite here and in the other place call him ‘The Weathervane’. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.